Did you watch it? It's not better power consumption wise. They were explaining that over the course of 3 years, you only pay a little bit more for using the AMD over the Intel, INCLUDING covering the extra cost of the Intel.

I would say that i5-3570k is better. Why ? I have been asking this for a long time, so I brought my PC to the local PC shop. They geared me with both of those CPU´s so I could try them. AMD was slightly faster in things like compressing, decompressing and those things. When we tried games, well. AMD was better in 2 games (MW3 and LoL) and Intel won in BF3, COD:BO2, Planetside 2, Dota 2, World of Warcraft, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks (those were the tested games we had there).

A lot of people says, that Intel is premium CPU, if you have money for it = get it!
Amd is really good, have been using it for 4 years before switching to i5-3570k.

As I said above, AMD is good in some things, usually in those which are heavy-CPU related like WinRar, etc and Intel is slightly behind but still can beat out the AMD.

First of all, they use a bad ITX board for intel (a high chance of throttling due to VRM issues, especially at high clocks)

They OC the AMD chip over 500mhz higher than the intel one and then proceed to say that a 4.5ghz clock for the i5 is excellent, amazing etc.

Then they claim that at normal resolutions there are huge differences between AMD and intel setups in GPU bound games, which doesn't make sense

They constantly say how people should have trusted them, and they're generally acting very smug, not adressing the important complaints about the 1st video

They present results that go against 99% of the reviews on the net

And to top it all of they go on tangents about intel compilers, cinebench etc.

I like the channel but I'm sorry to say, these guys have no idea what they're doing when it comes to OCing and benchmarking (logan's inability to understand some stuff can be seen in his earlier videos as well, how he talks about X79 and so on)

Incompetent review that shouldn't be trusted. Sadly it will be posted every time someone mentions intel being better at gaming (which is the widely accepted fact shown by dozens of review sites). Nonsense results all around (skyrim anyone?)

the new 3570 and 3770 series both have built in GPU's in their CPU core design. This is the first line that has that, and therefor they are a little better then their predecessors. It will take the load of your stand-alone GPU which will make single player / coop games run alot smoother.

The reason, why the i5-3570k was only overclocked to 4.5GHz is simple: Ivy Bridge can't be overclocked as high as Sandy Bridge, because it "hits a thermal wall" around the 4.5 / 4.6 GHz mark. Pushing it past this point requires very high voltages and good cooling.
The FX-8350 on the other hand can be oc'ed to 5GHz very easily. A friend of mine has it running at 4.8GHz with stock voltages and stock cooler.

1) They got very low scores on some games, so low that it makes people wonder if something throttled the Intel CPU. It's just not plausible that the AMD processor would run any games at 3x the framerate.

2) They're not using the ingame benchmarks but some random dicking around playing the game "doing the same things" is not really accurate comparison.

When it comes to overclocking numbers... AMD starts at 4.0GHz, when you OC it to 5.0GHz it runs 25% faster than original. Intel starts at 3.4GHz and after OC 4.5GHz which is about 32% increase. The Intel processor was actually overclocked much higher than the AMD from stock speed.

Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
Trolling should be.

In a few years, when games are using as many cores as you have by default, the way will be to have a ton of cores. Intel and AMD will both be at 8/16 or more cores by then.

Right now, games aren't doing that. They'll often spawn an extra thread or two for some fixed tasks, but the default approach is still relying on one big fat thread. If your CPU is slow at that, the whole game will be slow. It doesn't matter how many extra cores you have, if the game isn't using them, you picked the wrong CPU for the job. You can cherry pick games that show the AMD as being faster. You can pick them the other way round too. But what's more important is which is better for the games you want to play.

AMD have been playing catch up for some time now. Intel like to design good chips that perform well at low clock speeds. AMD haven't been able to do that so they just force them to run at higher frequency and stuff more cores on the chip. Downside to that is power consumption and there's only so far you can push that approach.

I dont understand, how can the numbers on Far Cry 3 vary that much when compared to EVERY other benchmark review.
I call BS on this video. Also, 25fps with a GTX670 on 1080p maxed FC3.... what. I have a 670 icm with a i5-760 (yes old) and i get 45-50fps maxed 1080p...